Mining Cool Heads A Must

Three years ago, in February 2004, Member for Tamworth, Peter Draper, told the NSW Parliament that in the past decade Gunnedah has suffered badly with the closure of its abattoir and the termination of a number of coal mines in the area.

"The town almost had its heart and soul ripped out as jobs were lost and many families moved out of town to seek other job oppomrtunities, taking with them school children, and professional and skilled workers", he said.

Now with Asian economies booming, there is growing demand for coal, and coal exploration has started in earnest again around Gunnedah -- this time by global giant BHP Billiton.  But, not surprisingly, a lot of farmers don't want the mines in their backyard.

In her letter to The Land (Scourge of farmers, The Land, March 29, p28) Jill File at Merriwa pointed out landowners already had enough trouble getting workers because so many were working in the mines (locally and interstate).

She continued, "Australia is the driest country on earth, so why even risk damaging [through mining] our little bit of productive, well watered farming land".

In reality, farming uses a lot more water than mining.

Statistics show that in 2004-05, agriculture used 12,191 gigalitres of water or about 65 percent of all water used by industries and households.  In contrast mining only used 413 gigalitres or 2.2 percent.

Further doubt about coal mining's impact on our water reserves came from Timothy Duddy, who wrote in his letter to The Land (Try eating coal, March 29, p28) "Using my google search engine, on the internet it takes just 13 seconds to get 470,000 references that come into view if I type the words "mining damage aquifer".

I, too, get a similar number of references when I type "mining damage aquifer", but if I typed "farming damage aquifer", I get even more -- 613,000 references.  So, based on Mr Duddy's logic, farming must be more of a threat to the Liverpool Plains than mining?

However, determining how many of those references are legitimate is an altogether more difficult undertaking.  Which brings me to the real dilemma confronting Liverpool Plain's farmers:  BHP Billiton has already been granted an exploration license, but it will be three to five years before farmers know whether mining will go ahead or not.

There is real concern about the risks mining brings to the aquifer and how farmers might be compensated, including for subsidence from long-wall mining.  Farmers tell me they fear landholders subject to exploration licenses will not have their land assets, or normal agricultural infrastructure protected under state legislation.

Yet, when I contacted Stephen David, BHP's General Manager for the Caroona Coal Project, he assured me that:  no exploration can occur near a house or on land with farm improvements without the consent of the owner.

And compensation is payable for any loss or damage which occurs as a result of exploration.  Furthermore, he said the Mining Act 1992 provides similar protections to landowners whose land is subject to a mining lease.

The Liverpool Plains farmers are in an unenviable situation.  Coal exploration licenses bring uncertainty, and farms may lose workers and water.  Nevertheless, now is not a time for recrimination or misinformation.

Rather there is a need for cool heads, good negotiators and to perhaps remember that mining can bring its own opportunities, as well as risks, to rural communities.

ADVERTISEMENT